Washington briefing: Moscow declaration on Karabakh welcomed, analyzed in the West

by Emil Sanamyan

Published: Saturday November 08, 2008

Although France and the United States were not involved in drafting of the Moscow declaration on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, the document is nevertheless "totally supported" by the United States, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and envoy to the Karabakh talks Matt Bryza told Azerbaijani media on November 2 and 3.

Mr. Bryza and his French colleague were invited to the summit between the Russian, Armenian, and Azerbaijan presidents, but apparently were kept out of the trilateral talks held near Moscow on November 2, Mr. Bryza told the Trend News Agency.

While hosting Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev in Ankara on November 5, his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gül similarly expressed support for the declaration. A statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry carried by news agencies on November 6 similarly expressed Ankara's desire to "contribute" to the conflict's settlement via mediation by France, Russia, and the United States.

While most Western commentators sought to downplay the declaration's importance, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's leading Caucasus expert Liz Fuller described it as a "victory for Armenia." In a November 3 analysis, she particularly noted that while President Aliyev previously threatened war against Armenia, has now pledged a political solution to the issue.

Writing for Eurasianet.org on November 4, the Russia-skeptic Stephen Blank noted that while "Moscow's opposition to the use of force can be justified for many reasons, but it also is probably the only way Baku could ever stand a realistic chance of recovering its lost lands. All of this means that Russia has imposed limits on Azerbaijan's negotiating position, leaving Baku in an extremely disadvantageous position."
Azerbaijan ceased issuing public threats of going to war after the Georgian attack on South Ossetia resulted in a massive response by Russia.

A report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) on October 29 suggested that even though Azerbaijan had spent some $4.5 billion on its armed forces in recent years, "for now at least, the delicate military balance with Armenia probably still holds."

The ICG report also complained about the lack of even basic public oversight over Azerbaijani government spending, but noted that "a modern and efficient army, even if subject to democratic, civilian control, is not unproblematic while the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh remains deeply resented."